All articles tagged with #retractions
A weekend reads roundup from Retraction Watch highlights a second death in a Chinese gene-therapy trial, the resignation of Cambridge professor Jason Arday amid plagiarism allegations, and Retraction Watch’s 16th birthday, alongside extensive coverage of data integrity, paper mills, AI-related misconduct, and global debates about trust in scholarly publishing.
A Cornell student, Zhihao Lei, signed at least 35 letters to editors in medical journals, claiming a Ph.D. from Cornell—claims that were false since he only held a bachelor’s degree and was a master’s student. Two letters in JAMA Oncology and JAMA Pediatrics were retracted after Lei acknowledged the credentials were misrepresented, while six other letters also carried Ph.D. claims that have not been corrected. The case raises concerns about author metadata and credentials in medical publishing, with ongoing investigations by multiple journals and no comment yet from JAMA or Cornell.
A large, non‑peer‑reviewed study posted on bioRxiv analyzed 72,644 biomedical preprints (2018–2025) and found that central conclusions remain unchanged in 39.9% and are revised only modestly in about 50%, with major changes in around 10%. Revisions tend to become more cautious after peer review. Major revision rates vary by field (7.2% for bioinformatics vs 17.5% for microbiology) and have declined over time (17% in 2019 to 5.7% in 2024). Preprinted papers are retracted at roughly half the rate of non‑preprinted ones (8.1 vs 18.7 per 10,000), though the study is observational and subject to selection biases. Overall, preprints appear more reliable than some critics claim, but caveats remain regarding interpretation and methodology.
After reviewing 36 publications from 1996–2023, the University of Zurich cleared Adriano Aguzzi of research misconduct, finding no proven intent or negligence, though seven papers contained scientifically significant errors and should be retracted or corrected; two papers have already been retracted, sparking calls for broader accountability for co-authors. Aguzzi plans to correct the record and will continue not-for-profit research via a foundation, while experts urge improved data preservation and independent verification of key results.
Retraction Watch’s Weekend Reads highlights a surge in misleading medical studies, calls to rethink the timing of cancer therapies, and a closer look at Max Planck’s retractions, while noting publisher actions (expressions of concern for books), notable fraud cases, and expanding databases/tools that track retractions and related integrity issues in scientific publishing.
Three vaccine-safety studies frequently cited by RFK Jr. and anti-vaccine groups were removed or placed under investigation, highlighting how flawed data were used to spur policy changes, including a CDC shift on autism links; the papers—Miller 2021 (VAERS-based SIDS), Miller & Hooker 2020 (vaccinated vs unvaccinated health problems), and Gallagher & Goodman 2010 (hepatitis B and autism)—have drawn sharp criticism for weak methods, with Sage Open Medicine issuing an expression of concern and Gallagher & Goodman’s paper later retracted. While some allies defend the research, many scientists see the actions as a positive step for public health amid rising vaccine-preventable diseases.
BMJ’s Journal of Medical Genetics has retracted seven of eight papers from a 2019 guest-edited special issue after an investigation found the peer-review process irreparably compromised and evidence of ‘improbable device use’; the guest editor reportedly selected reviewers, most affiliated with Nanjing University, with the only non-retracted paper being a Harvard Medical School breast cancer case report. The special issue, tied to genomic aspects of cancer immunotherapy, highlights vulnerabilities in guest-edited collections and mirrors a broader pattern of compromised editor handling and peer review across journals.
The piece chronicles how the once-dominant amyloid-β hypothesis has been undermined by multiple retractions and high-profile drug failures, fueling debate over data integrity and regulatory controversy. While FDA-approved antibodies targeting amyloid-β have had limited or questionable benefits and come with serious risks, researchers are increasingly exploring alternatives—such as neuroinflammation, infections, the gut microbiome, and APOE4-related pathways—suggesting Alzheimer's may result from multiple interacting factors rather than a single cause. The article highlights the persistence of amyloid research despite misconduct findings and casts doubt on a simple cure tied to amyloid-β clearance.
Retraction Watch’s weekend digest notes that large language models aren’t the core issue in science publishing, reports that offering cash to spot errors doesn’t work, and spotlights vaping studies with numerous flaws and few retractions, while also outlining ongoing investigations and policy discussions around scientific integrity and publishing practices.
A Nature feature argues that retracting papers due to honest errors should be normalized to protect the scientific record, sharing stories like Nicole King’s Science retraction, noting incentives such as the Ctrl-Z Award, and emphasizing supportive, calm collaboration among researchers and journals to reduce stigma and encourage transparent corrections.
A chemistry researcher had 35 papers retracted within 24 months for a mix of issues including major errors in analyses, compromised peer review, image-related problems, and citation manipulation. Most retractions appeared in Elsevier- and Royal Society of Chemistry–published journals, placing the scientist on Retraction Watch’s leaderboard. Coauthors have defended the work as a matter of presentation rather than fraudulent data.
Retraction Watch’s Weekend Reads roundup recaps a week of publishing scrutiny: headlines about a researcher’s alleged poisoning obfuscation, plagiarism accusations, fake references, and dozens of retractions due to compromised peer review; it also highlights AI-related issues in arXiv’s new rules (endorsements for first-time posters and English submissions) and a broad set of discussions on replication, ethics, and data use. The post notes the Hijacked Journal Checker with 400+ entries, the Retraction Watch Database surpassing 63,000 retractions, COVID-era retractions over 640, and 50 mass resignations, and invites donations to support the work.
Two large analyses find that critical posts on X often appear before scientific papers are retracted, with 8.3% of retracted studies having a critical tweet before retraction versus 1.5% of non-retracted ones; negative sentiment and the use of red-flag terms correlated with faster retractions, though causality isn’t proven. The work highlights post-publication commentary as a tool to flag potential issues, while cautioning that online critiques can reflect biases and require verification before action.
A Bengaluru economist discovers her study was stolen and published by others, with authorship slots allegedly sold on Telegram for roughly $165–$200. The misappropriated paper, later indexed by a different journal, prompts plagiarism concerns when editors find it nearly identical to her rejected draft. The incident underscores how paper mills operate, the push for retractions, and ongoing investigations by publishers, even as some listed authors deny involvement.
A finance professor in Ireland, Brian Lucey, had 12 papers retracted from journals he edited by Elsevier, citing editorial conflicts, though Lucey disputes the grounds for retraction and highlights widespread similar practices in finance and economics publishing. The retractions, which involved highly cited articles, have sparked debate about editorial ethics and conflicts of interest in academic publishing.